Newsline 12 February 2016

Newsline 12 February 2016

Secularist of the Year is fast approaching; don't forget to buy your ticket. There is a discounted price for our members, so renew your membership or join the NSS today!

News, Blogs & Opinion

Government praises “spiritual insight” of bishops in response to petition calling for their removal from the Lords

News | Tue, 9th Feb 2016

The Government has said that changes to the Lords are "important" but that the position of the bishops in the Upper House is not a "priority", in response to a petition calling for the removal of 26 bishops from the House of Lords.

After the censure of the US Episcopalian Church by the Anglican Communion over same-sex marriage, a petition was launched calling on the Government to reform the House of Lords by removing Anglican bishops from the Upper House.

The petition read: "With the publication of the Church of England's intention to sanction the US Episcopal Church over the latter's sympathetic stance towards equal marriage, the C of E is quite out of step with UK Law and indeed common humanity. Thus we feel strongly these bishops have no place in our government."

It quickly achieved over 10,000 signatures, prompting a Government response that called for "constitutional changes" while defending the role bishops currently play in the House of Lords, citing their "important independent voice and spiritual insight".

"Changes to the composition of the House of Lords, including Church of England Bishops, are important but, given the very full programme of other constitutional changes, are not a priority at present," a statement from the Cabinet Office said.

Despite touting their constitutional reform agenda, the Government stated that it has "no plans to remove the Church of England Bishops from the House of Lords."

The response argued that the establishment of the Church of England and the "relationship between the Church and the State" is an "important part of the constitutional framework" of the UK.

"As senior members of the established Church of England, 26 bishops are appointed to the House of Lords. Bishops provide an important independent voice and spiritual insight into the work of the Upper House and while they make no claims to direct representation, they seek to be a voice for all people of faiths. The House of Lords also contains a number of other senior faith representatives."

National Secular Society campaigns manager, Stephen Evans, said that the Government was "out-of-touch" to defend the current role of the established church.

"Most people in the UK do not look to religious figures for moral leadership. On issues such as marriage equality and assisted dying Anglican bishops don't even represent the people in their pews, let alone 'all people of faiths'. Rather than seeking to influence society from a uniquely privileged position, the Church should pursue its political ambitions in the same way any other special interest group is expected to. The 'spiritual insight' of Anglican bishops is simply not needed in policy-making and the bench of bishops is an anomaly in a modern, liberal democracy.

Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby recently told the Primates' Meeting of the Lords Spirituals' influence, praising them as the most "orthodox" bench of bishops since the Second World War.

"We are still a major part of the glue that holds society together. A recent attempt to introduce assisted suicide was crushingly defeated in Parliament. We are exempted from the same sex marriage act, showing that our voice is still heard against the prevailing wind of our society, and at much cost to ourselves, by the way."

In 2013 nine bishops voted for a "wrecking amendment" to block same-sex marriage. Five abstained. None supported it.

The petition can be signed here. If it reaches 100,000 signatures it will be considered for debate in Parliament.

Vatican tells new bishops they don’t “necessarily” need to report sex abuse of children

News | Thu, 11th Feb 2016

The National Secular Society has expressed its concern over guidelines for newly appointed bishops published by the Vatican which state that bishops do not always need to report clerical sex abuse to the authorities.

The guidance reportedly states that "According to the state of civil laws of each country where reporting is obligatory, it is not necessarily the duty of the bishop to report suspects to authorities, the police or state prosecutors in the moment when they are made aware of crimes or sinful deeds".

The NSS, which has campaigned for ten years, including at the United Nations, to expose clerical abuse and the rape and sexual abuse of minors, strongly criticised the guidance for flouting secular law and the recommendations of the United Nations.

Keith Porteous Wood, NSS executive director, commented: "It is unfortunately no surprise that these guidelines encourage bishops not to report suspected abuse, rather than obligating them to do so as the UN recommended specifically to the Vatican in 2014."

In 2014 the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended to the Holy See that the Vatican "Establish clear rules, mechanisms and procedures for the mandatory reporting of all suspected cases of child sexual abuse and exploitation to law enforcement authorities."

Crucially, the UN CRC said that the Vatican must ensure that "all priests, religious personnel and individuals working under the authority of the Holy See are made aware of their reporting obligations and of the fact that, in case of conflict, these obligations prevail over Canon law provisions."

Mr Wood added: "The Vatican has ignored the vast majority of the UN's recommendations, even resorting to attacking the Committee that made them. The Vatican claims disingenuously that it has no obligation to even attempt to instruct the Church worldwide to report abuse to secular authorities, and to instruct that evidence, including that which is secreted under the auspices of the Vatican, be preserved and provided to those authorities as needed.

"Instead, the Pope appointed a powerless commission to protect minors. If he had really wanted to curtail the rampant worldwide child abuse and rape committed by clerics and bring justice to bear on perpetrators and their accomplices, he need only have followed the uncompromising recommendations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.

"The Pope also appointed a Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith tribunal to examine bishops' behaviour. The tribunal has clearly been established by the Church at the highest level to provide an escape route and create the illusion that bishops are being subjected to justice, but for canonical 'justice' the ultimate penalty – rarely imposed – is defrocking.

"These developments in the new papacy have been a triumph for public relations, but serve only to add to the abuse of victims by the institution to which minors were entrusted. Under the current papacy and to this day the vast majority of clerical abusers and their facilitators continue to escape justice or even exposure, and the victims continue to be denied compensation with the Church's full and considerable might."

In September 2015 a report drafted by the NSS into rape, sexual abuse and violence against minors by Catholic clerics was submitted to the UN Human Rights Council. Additionally that month an oral statement, prepared in part by the NSS, was delivered by Josephine Macintosh of the European Humanist Federation which strongly criticised the Holy See's failure to protect children.

Prior to that, the National Secular Society was a key witness before the UN Human Rights Council at the private examination of the Holy See over child abuse. The Committee later accused the Holy See of failing to acknowledge the "extent of the crimes committed." The Committee ultimately made searing criticisms of the Vatican's response to the "sexual abuse of tens of thousands of children worldwide."

Dan Walker’s creationism may be an affront to science – but he’s entitled to his beliefs

Opinion | Thu, 11th Feb 2016

The appointment of "young Earth" creationist Dan Walker to front BBC Breakfast has caused a considerable backlash, but unless and until his views interfere with his ability to present the news in a balanced and neutral way, he's entitled to his beliefs, argues Benjamin Jones.

Dan Walker believes that the Book of Genesis is an accurate account of 'creation'. He will now front the BBC's flagship morning news show and will, presumably, be required to impartially present stories on scientific research (among other things) which directly challenge and refute his most centrally-held beliefs.

How he can manage this level of cognitive dissonance as an individual is up to him – that's his problem. As a secularist I only care if he fails. If he genuinely cannot hold true to the BBC's requirement for impartiality then he cannot continue, but at present Walker's critics are presuming failure; they are making an assumption that he cannot remain neutral because of his beliefs.

Writing in the Telegraph, Rupert Myers, a Christian, blasts the appointment as "problematic" – because of Walker's creationist views.

"A belief that the earth is between six and ten thousand years old, and that presumably God planted dinosaur skeletons in the ground to give us all something to talk about, goes well beyond the values for which people of faith can demand respect," Myers writes.

Myers adds that "As a Christian, I hope society continues to protect my right to hold beliefs and to express them." I do as well. But calling for Walker to be pre-emptively sacked, purely on account of his "loopsville" religious beliefs (as they were described by a "senior BBC figure" quoted in the Times), is absolutely contrary to this aim.

I share Myers' disdain for creationism – particularly the "young Earth" variety – but Myers might also bear in mind that a great many people would regard theism of the most scientifically literate type as completely beyond the pale of a "rational" view. But it would be abhorrent to argue that theists shouldn't be allowed to present television programmes. Any atheist who said such a thing would be making an anti-secular argument.

"To believe that God literally created the earth in six days is to deny basic elements of logic. It may not be as offensive or insensitive as holocaust denial, but it is as logically indefensible." By the standards of some atheists, most if not all religious beliefs would "deny basic elements of logic."

If Walker fails in any of the many tests ahead, if he cannot present news stories on physics, palaeontology, biology – or religion – neutrally then he should be sacked. But it is anathema to the values of a secular society that somebody be denied a post just in case their unorthodox and wildly inaccurate views are manifested.

I have no idea what BBC presenters think privately on any number of issues, from astrology to theosophy, if they read their star signs, if they entertain unusual philosophical or pseudo-scientific beliefs of any kind. I don't care. It only matters if it starts to interfere – even slightly – in their job.

Likewise, that BBC political journalists have private political sympathies doesn't matter; unless those views are manifested in how they do their job and breach the BBC's rules on neutrality and impartiality. If a BBC presenter believed in David Icke's theory that the world is controlled by a covert race of reptiles, I wouldn't care – until and unless they allowed that private delusion to influence their professional conduct. As soon as that insane belief (which is arguably less outrageous than "young Earth" creationism) manifested itself, they should be sacked. But not until then.

Establishing a highly subjective test before employing a TV presenter for what types of belief conform to "reason" and what lies within the "spectrum" of acceptable religious beliefs would be an extraordinarily unwise and unfair thing to do. It would be a license for discrimination against the religious – something a secular society should stand against.

Religious ceremonies exclude non-Christians and the non-religious, says councillor

News | Wed, 10th Feb 2016

A local councillor has called on Ross-on-Wye town council to move away from religious events and to embrace inclusive, secular ceremonies – warning that current arrangements alienate non-Christians.

Cost saving measures considered by Ross-on-Wye included a proposal to scrap a non-religious mayor making ceremony, while retaining a civic service held in a local church.

The civic service is typically held in St Mary's Church but the plans prompted opposition from one councillor who argued that the non-religious ceremony should be retained instead of the church-based service.

Councillor Jane Roberts, who is on the Finance Committee of Ross-on-Wye town council, said the existing civic service alienates non-Christians and the non-religious.

"I worry about the civic service. I think it excludes people, such as myself, who are not practising members of the Church of England."

"The civic service perpetuates the links between the church and state within the town."

Councillor Roberts said there was an "important matter of principle" at stake in the discussions.

"I personally believe that this country would be better placed if the church was disestablished and a proper separation between church and state," she added.

After Councillor Robert's intervention, the town council decided to keep both events rather than just the religious one, and an amendment was passed ensuring that both the civic service in the church and the non-religious mayor making ceremony do not run over their budgets.

National Secular Society spokesperson Benjamin Jones welcomed Councillor Roberts' comments. "It's good to see increasing numbers of councillors arguing for local government to be secular. The Government is keen to see religion promoted in councils, but it's clear that many councillors and voters do not think religion should have a special role in the business of local authorities."

In 2015 the Local Government (Religious etc. Observances) Act was passed, despite a campaign by the National Secular Society and its honorary associates in parliament, which allowed local authorities in England to "facilitate" religious events.

The legislation was primarily aimed at overturning a High Court order which ruled that the practise of having prayers during council meetings was unlawful, but the Act also made provision for local authorities to engage in a variety of religious activities.

Local authorities in England may now "support or facilitate" a "religious event", an "event with a religious element" or an "an event connected with a religious or philosophical belief".

The legislation covers a range of local authorities from town councils and the London Assembly to joint waste authorities and internal drainage boards.

Georgian blasphemy law to impose fines for insulting religion

News | Mon, 8th Feb 2016

Plans in Georgia to pass an anti-blasphemy measure with punitive fines for 'offences' have drawn criticism from a non-Orthodox bishop, and from an MP of the ruling coalition.

The bill would mean a 300 lari fine, around £84, or a week's average salary, for "insults to religious feelings". The 'desecration' of a religious building or symbol would result in a fine of 500 lari, equivalent to about £140. In each case, a second offence would attract double the fine.

The bishop is Rusudan Gotsiridze, an Evangelical Baptist, and the first female bishop in Georgia. She has spoken out against the bill, describing it as 'terrible' and warning: "This law is not going to protect anyone; at least not the minorities, and will be a powerful tool against freedom of speech." She hopes it will not pass to become law.

Republican Party MP and member of the coalition, Tamar Kordzaia, has also criticised the measure: "A perceived insult to religious feelings should be disputed by an individual. The state can never know if some particular action is offensive to a particular individual."

The ruling coalition endorsed the plans at a meeting of the human rights committee. The Georgian Orthodox Church has reportedly denied backing the bill, but the country's constitution was strongly criticised by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) in 2015 for "systemic discrimination" against the non-religious and "systematic religious privilege" for the Orthodox Church which is conferred with special status and privilege – despite the nation's constitution stipulating the independence of church and state.

IHEU's annual 'Freedom of Thought' report criticised the concordat between the Georgian Orthodox Church (GOC) and the government, which "grants rights not given to other religious groups, including legal immunity for the GOC patriarch" and "a consultative role in government, especially in the sphere of education".

A similar proposal was mooted in 2013, at which time it was denounced as contradicting 'basic human rights' for restricting freedom of expression. Religious figures condemned the earlier proposal for threatening democratic development and religious pluralism.

The Tolerance Centre warned that "Imposing legal prohibitions against hate speech will not lead to the desired result."